SONU PUJARI Vs. ARJUN BISSOYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner stands convicted under Section 498, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced thereunder to undergo R.I. for 3 months. The conviction of the Petitioner has been upheld by the appellate Court on the findings that Sanmati was the married wife of P.W. 1; that fact was known to the Petitioner; she at the relevant time was admittedly staying in the house of the Petitioner, and that the Petitioner, with the intention of having illicit intercourse with her, did not allow Sanmati to go back to the house of P.W. 1 in spite of approaches made to that effect. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have deposed that in the village Panchayat the Petitioner stated that he had married Sanmati by paying money and so he would not allow her to go back to the house of P.W. 1. The ceremonies constituting the second marriage of Sanmati with the Petitioner were not established in this case. But on the other above mentioned facts found by the Courts below on the evidence on record, the Petitioner has been convicted under Section 498, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) MR . Y.S.R. Murty, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 498, Indian Penal Code cannot be upheld in view of the fact that the marriage of Sanmati with P.W. 1 was not established in this case, as details of the ceremonies constituting that marriage have not been proved in this case.

(3.) FROM all that has been stated above, in this case the prosecution does dot rely merely on the admission of the Petitioner that Sanmati was the married wife of P.W. 1; that fact has also been established independently by the evidence adduced by the prosecution as mentioned above. The fact that at the relevant time Sanmati was living in the house of the Petitioner has also been admitted by the Petitioner and is established on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. It is also established that the Petitioner did not allow Sanmati to go back to the house of P.W. 1 but kept her detained in his house on h is assertion that he had married her on payment of money. Though the said marriage has not been proved, on the evidence in record it is established beyond doubt that the Petitioner had kept or detained Sanmati in his house with the purpose and intent of having illicit intercourse with her. On the above facts, well established on the evidence on record, the offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code, of which the Petitioner stands convicted is established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly his conviction for the said offence is well founded. I do not see any reason to interfere with the sentence passed by the appellate Court against the Petitioner. The revision is accordingly dismissed.